Minneapolis - The New Gay! (house, wedding, to buy)

[southernsmoke]

OK. So much to respond to... I'll try to hit everything.

First of all, forgive me if you think I am out of line, but these posts seem to continue to display arrogance. And the arrogance relates to a liberal worldview. So I continue to think that I was justified in referring to liberal arrogance. (Aren't you types supposed to be "tolerant" and "nonjudgmental"--or is that just for people who think like you?)

Second, the obligatory jab at the South... I would expect nothing less from you all. But you really shouldn't make fun of people for incest or beastiality--they don't choose to be like that, after all.

Third, why I am opposed... It is clear that people are designed for men to have sex with women, not with men (body parts, procreation, etc.). The state can have a legitimate interest in encouraging only marriage between one man and one woman.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

The state can have a legitimate interest in encouraging only marriage between one man and one woman.

That may be true, but why would you want to encourage gay people into heterosexual marriages unless your goal was to increase the nation's divorce rate or to make people more miserable? The state should have a more legitimate interest in the overall happiness of its populace....hence, letting gay people be gay.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

OK. So much to respond to... I'll try to hit everything.

First of all, forgive me if you think I am out of line, but these posts seem to continue to display arrogance. And the arrogance relates to a liberal worldview. So I continue to think that I was justified in referring to liberal arrogance. (Aren't you types supposed to be "tolerant" and "nonjudgmental"--or is that just for people who think like you?)

Second, the obligatory jab at the South... I would expect nothing less from you all. But you really shouldn't make fun of people for incest or beastiality--they don't choose to be like that, after all.

Third, why I am opposed... It is clear that people are designed for men to have sex with women, not with men (body parts, procreation, etc.). The state can have a legitimate interest in encouraging only marriage between one man and one woman.

I still don't understand how this is arrogance. I don't care what people think about gay people in their own private lives, but what business is it of the government?

And while perhaps you and your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, understand marriage primarily in terms of procreation and sex, but that's the religious view, not the civil. I'm more concerned about families and couples having the legal protections that come with civil marriage. I don't care about what people are doing or are not doing when it come to their sex life (as long as it's consensual and only involves adults), but the marriage debate has little, if anything, about sex. How would it possibly help the state to force so many couples and families to live without the protections that other straight couples enjoy? It's not good for the couples, it's not good for their kids (and yes, gay couples DO have children), it's not good for our society as a whole. Having two classes of citizens with different rules, based SOLELY on whether or not they are in a relationship with someone of the same or different gender, has no benefit to society as a whole, and destabilizes our community. Gay people aren't suddenly going to go away, much as you might prefer that they do.

If the government is going to recognize marriage then they need to do so for gay couples, too. Or just change everything so that the government ONLY recognizes civil unions. And again, churches have absolutely no requirement that THEY have to recognize the a marriage between two gay people if it goes against their beliefs. They have (and should have) that right. The state, however, is a different story.

[snofarmer]

It's funny to see when someone says gay that they assume it's only men, news flash there are just as many gay women.

How does it effect a strait couple if a gay couple gets married?

Just because you think or know it's wrong to be gay how does it change the fact that it does not effect you.

Being gay is not right for me but who am I to say what is right for you?

Are you so scared that if a gay person hit on you that you would not be able to say no?

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, of course, but the level of liberal arrogance in this thread is nauseating.

Exactly, everyone is entitled to their OWN opinions and beliefs. Just don't use the government to force your opinons and belifes on the rights of others.

[Laggard]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Third, why I am opposed... It is clear that people are designed for men to have sex with women, not with men (body parts, procreation, etc.). The state can have a legitimate interest in encouraging only marriage between one man and one woman.

So a marriage that does not consist of traditional sexual practices is not really a marriage? What if a man with no genitalia marries a woman? Is their marriage not valid?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Exactly, everyone is entitled to their OWN opinions and beliefs. Just don't use the government to force your opinons and belifes on the rights of others.

What exactly do you think democratic government is?

Do you sing a different tune when you tell me I have to use mercury light bulbs?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Slig

That may be true, but why would you want to encourage gay people into heterosexual marriages unless your goal was to increase the nation's divorce rate or to make people more miserable? The state should have a more legitimate interest in the overall happiness of its populace....hence, letting gay people be gay.

... because government's primary interest is always letting people do whatever they want to do--which is why I am sure you advocate the eradication of all laws.

But even so, your point confuses the issue. I am not suggesting criminalizing gay relationships. Marriage is a different thing entirely.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I still don't understand how this is arrogance. I don't care what people think about gay people in their own private lives, but what business is it of the government?

And while perhaps you and your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, understand marriage primarily in terms of procreation and sex, but that's the religious view, not the civil. I'm more concerned about families and couples having the legal protections that come with civil marriage. I don't care about what people are doing or are not doing when it come to their sex life (as long as it's consensual and only involves adults), but the marriage debate has little, if anything, about sex. How would it possibly help the state to force so many couples and families to live without the protections that other straight couples enjoy? It's not good for the couples, it's not good for their kids (and yes, gay couples DO have children), it's not good for our society as a whole. Having two classes of citizens with different rules, based SOLELY on whether or not they are in a relationship with someone of the same or different gender, has no benefit to society as a whole, and destabilizes our community. Gay people aren't suddenly going to go away, much as you might prefer that they do.

If the government is going to recognize marriage then they need to do so for gay couples, too. Or just change everything so that the government ONLY recognizes civil unions. And again, churches have absolutely no requirement that THEY have to recognize the a marriage between two gay people if it goes against their beliefs. They have (and should have) that right. The state, however, is a different story.

As a preliminary note: characterizing my beliefs as "religious" does not delegitimize them any more than me characterizing yours as antireligious would delegitimize them.

Second, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. You want to try to redefine a pre-existing institution... and you are the one talking about destabilization? Marriage (between one man and one woman), aside from being the natural order of things, is also a stabilizing social force--and has been for a very long time.

And I take it that your position is that as long as the government makes no distinction between relationships between two men/three men/two women/two gals and a dude/etc., that private parties can go about doing as they please--i.e., not recognizing gay relationships. Can a wedding photographer choose to photograph only traditional weddings? Can a church refuse to hire a gay person? Can a business owner refuse to hire a gay person? Where are you trying to take this exactly?

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

What exactly do you think democratic government is?

Do you sing a different tune when you tell me I have to use mercury light bulbs?

Mercury light bulbs may harm people. How does a gay couple getting married harm you?